State v. Jacumin
778 S.W. 2d 430 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, the determination of probable cause for a search warrant based on an informant's tip is governed by the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test, which requires the affidavit to establish both the informant's basis of knowledge and their veracity or reliability.
Facts:
- Police received information from two confidential informants that Richard T. Jacumin was selling drugs from his residence on Tisdale Drive.
- The informants claimed that Jacumin regularly traveled to the Knoxville area to obtain cocaine from a supplier known as 'T.C.'
- Police conducted surveillance of Jacumin's home for several weeks, observing vehicles with Montgomery County license plates, including one registered to a reputed drug dealer.
- Another vehicle observed was registered to a resident of Hackworth Drive, a street where police believed 'T.C.' lived.
- A third, previously reliable informant told police that Jacumin was preparing to go to Knoxville to buy more cocaine.
- Three days later, officers observed Jacumin leave his residence carrying a gym bag and drive his car onto Interstate 40, heading in the direction of Knoxville.
- The officers followed Jacumin's car only to the Davidson County line before discontinuing surveillance.
Procedural Posture:
- Police obtained and executed a search warrant on Richard T. Jacumin's property, seizing marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia.
- Jacumin was indicted in the trial court for possession of controlled substances with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell.
- Jacumin filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Jacumin entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.
- Jacumin, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the affidavit for the search warrant lacked probable cause, and dismissed all charges.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, was granted permission for appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution require adherence to the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test for determining probable cause for a search warrant based on an informant's tip, rather than the federal 'totality-of-the-circumstances' test established in Illinois v. Gates?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooper, J.
Yes. Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution requires adherence to the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test, which provides a more appropriate structure for probable cause inquiries than the federal Gates standard. The court reasoned that the Aguilar-Spinelli test is more in keeping with the specific language of the Tennessee Constitution, which prohibits warrants issued 'without evidence of the fact committed.' In adopting this standard, the court rejected the more flexible 'totality-of-the-circumstances' approach from Illinois v. Gates as 'unacceptably shapeless and permissive.' Applying the Aguilar-Spinelli test to the affidavit in this case, the court found it deficient. The affidavit failed to establish the 'basis of knowledge' for the informants' tips, as it did not explain how they knew about Jacumin's alleged activities. Furthermore, the police corroboration—observing Jacumin drive a short distance in the general direction of Knoxville—was insufficient to cure these defects, as it required too many suppositions to establish probable cause.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes that the Tennessee Constitution provides greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By formally rejecting the federal Gates standard and adopting the more rigid Aguilar-Spinelli test, the Tennessee Supreme Court entrenched the principle of independent state constitutionalism. This ruling created a higher, more defendant-friendly standard for law enforcement in Tennessee when seeking search warrants based on informant tips. Future cases involving such warrants in Tennessee must be analyzed separately under both the federal and the more stringent state constitutional standard.
